Regulations on the review of scientific articles of the peer-reviewed scientific journal
1. General Provisions
1.1. The publication of scientific articles in the journal assumes an obligatory review of the manuscripts submitted by the authors.
1.2. This provision determines the procedure and forms for reviewing, the requirements for the composition of reviewers, and the deadlines.
2. Order of review
2.1. For the review, manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal are allowed in strict accordance with the conditions and procedure for receiving manuscripts.
2.2. After determining the correspondence of an article to the journal's profile, they are sent to reviewers without indicating the author's name (s). Reviewers are notified that the materials they send are private property of the authors and contain information that can not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies and transfer the received materials to third parties
2.3. After receiving the manuscript reviewers carry out its review. The reviews are compiled according to the form approved by the publisher, or in a free form containing a detailed analytical review, include an ap- praised assessment of the scientific (theoretical, methodological and conceptual) level of the article; the degree of novelty of the results obtained by the author; the practical significance of the results; the degree of assistance in the development of scientific representations in the relevant field of knowledge, a general list and analysis of all the observed shortcomings, as well as a statement of the absence of plagiarism and a general conclusion about the advisability of publishing an article or its rejection and revision.
The review is signed by the original signature of the reviewer and certified by the personnel service at the main place of work of the reviewer.
2.4. In case of positive conclusion of the reviewers, the manuscript of the article is returned to the editor for publication in one of the issues of the journal.
2.5. In the event that the reviews or recommendations contain substantive comments and the conclusion about the need to finalize the article, the manuscript of the article is returned to the author for elimination of comments. The revised version of the article, as decided by the editorial board, can be sent for re-review. In the case of a repeated negative review result, the manuscript of the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
2.6. In the case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript, the editorial board of the journal sends the author (s) a motivated refusal with the application of the reviews without specifying the names of the reviewers (-a).
2.7. The review is confidential:
a) the manuscript is sent to the referee without the author of the article;
b) the review is sent to the author without specifying a reviewer;
c) deviations from confidentiality are allowed if the reviewer considers it necessary to personally express specific suggestions to the author for improving the article.
2.6. Reviews and recommendations for each article are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the journal number in which the peer-reviewed work is posted.
3. Review dates
3.1. The manuscript is sent for review after it has been received by the editorial office of the journal.
3.2. The review period is no more than 10 working days from the receipt of the manuscript to the referee.
3.3. If additional review time is required at the request of the reviewer, this period may be increased, but not more than 5 working days.
4. Composition of reviewers
4.1. The reviewers are the members of the editorial board of the journal, and also doctors of sciences whose scientific specialization corresponds to the subject of the manuscript can be attracted.
4.2. The composition of reviewers is approved by the editor-in-chief of the journal and, if necessary, can be expanded.